It comes down to something like Essentialism. As wikipedia puts it, "for any specific entity (such as an animal, a group of people, a physical object, a concept) there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function."

Perhaps the function hasn't changed (though that has yet to be seen) but its identity certainly has. Identity matters. It's why we prize a genuine Rembrandt over the technically superior forgeries. It's why we nod our head in agreement to ideas of people we respect when we dismissed the same ideas being shouted from a lunatic on the street. And it's why, at least to some people, there is a material difference between otherwise identically functioning independently produced VR gear, and Facebook produced VR gear. That may be hard to understand for you, if you put all of your value on the simple function of the device, but not everyone feels that way.---Check out www.axemurderingworms.com . And remember kids: Sound isn't music, Books aren't stories, This is not a pipe, and The medium is the message.

It comes down to something like Essentialism. As wikipedia puts it, "for any specific entity (such as an animal, a group of people, a physical object, a concept) there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function."

Perhaps the function hasn't changed (though that has yet to be seen) but its identity certainly has. Identity matters. It's why we prize a genuine Rembrandt over the technically superior forgeries. It's why we nod our head in agreement to ideas of people we respect when we dismissed the same ideas being shouted from a lunatic on the street. And it's why, at least to some people, there is a material difference between otherwise identically functioning independently produced VR gear, and Facebook produced VR gear. That may be hard to understand for you, if you put all of your value on the simple function of the device, but not everyone feels that way.

The only issue this might end up having is if support gets dropped to the point we only see facebook games on it

In the real world they actually WOULD be entitled as investors in getting their return back from their investment if it was not performing as they expected it to. Certainly when that investment wanted to sell out to a whole other corporate entity.

But Kickstarter is some magical fantasy land where people just get free money with no accountability.---R.I.P LaManoNera04-06-2009

Gamefaqs, the place where idiots claim the false as fact and nobody has any sympathy.

To the people saying ToU do not hold up in court, you are wrong. They often don't hold up up in court because they infringe on some kind of freedom. Often ToU are unlawful and that's why they get rejected. There's nothing unlawful about a ToU like kickstarter has, so it may stand up in court.

Second, if I have an idea and I sell it to someone else, no matter how true to my vision that person tries to keep it, there will be differences. The people have the right to be angry. The attractiveness of a lot of these kickstarter projects is that it's someone's cool idea that they love. If you actually know anything about game development then you'd know that publishers override artistic freedom for profits. Kickstarter offers a way to put power back into the creator's hand. Selling out your idea goes completely against this.

I do not know the actual wording of the kickstarter pitch, so I can't say if the funders are legally obligated to a refund, but they have every right to be angry. Facebook should honestly just give them a refund to save public opinion.---PSN: s1l3nt_x_cha0s GT: xziT4L3NTZx*slips of cliff*

They have no case, period. The product will be made. Those fans are whiny little brats, and that Minecraft creator is the biggest brat of them all.---Wii ID code: 4338 5973 3223 4003AC: CF Tim Spyke 3480-6279-5331